Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
C.HARI SHANKAR
Bulgari Spa – Appellant
Versus
Notandas Gems Private Limited – Respondent
(By Video Conference on account of COVID-19)
IA 16751/2021 (under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908)
1. The plaintiff and the defendant manufacture and deal in, inter alia, high end luxury jewellery.
2. Thankfully, in the present case, they are duly deferential to the reputation and goodwill of each other.
3. The plaintiff alleges infringement, by the defendant, of (i) its trademark "SERPENTI", forming part of four of its registered trademarks, to which detailed allusion would be made hereinafter, (ii) a device mark of a snakehead, in which too, it holds a registration and (iii) the design of its wristwatch and bracelet, in respect of which, too, the plaintiff holds a valid and subsisting registration under the DESIGNS ACT , 2000. All these registrations undisputedly are valid and subsisting as on date.
4. Plaintiff's registered Trade Marks: The plaintiff holds the following trademarks registrations:
(i) the device mark "BVLGARI SERPENTI",
(ii) the device mark "SERPENTI HYPNOTIC",
(iii) the device mark "SERPENTI INCANTATI",
(iv) the device mark "SERPENTI SEDUTTORI" and
(v) the device mark of a "snakehead", which appears thus:
Th
 |  |
 |  |
 | |
 | |
 |
 |  |
 |  |
 |  |
 |
The court ruled that design piracy requires examination from the perspective of an informed user aware of prior art; the plaintiff's design not being a fraudulent or obvious imitation led to the dism....
The court affirmed the necessity to protect unique visual designs, emphasizing the significant visual impression in establishing design infringement regardless of minor differences, thereby granting ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the protection of design rights under the Designs Act 2000, focusing on the novelty and originality of the design, registration of assignment deed,....
A registered design cannot simultaneously be claimed as a trademark, and prior publication invalidates its registration under the Designs Act.
The court ruled that the plaintiffs established a prima facie case of design infringement, necessitating the maintenance of the interim injunction against the defendants based on failure to prove pri....
The Designs Act protects novelty and originality in registered designs, with a focus on visual appeal to determine design piracy.
The onus to prove lack of novelty or originality in a design as a ground of defence against design piracy lies with the defendants, and unsubstantiated claims cannot invalidate the plaintiff's copyri....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
